Provided Via Email 19000 W. Highway 72, Suite 100 Arvada, CO 80007 - PDF document

Ascent Energy, Inc, Woodford/Caney Shale Reservoir Assessment Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 LABORATORY ACTIVITIES............................................................................................................ 5 2.1 Helium Density................................................................................................................................. 5 2.2 TOC and Rock Eval Testing ............................................................................................................ 5 2.3 Adsorption Gas Storage Capacity Analysis ..................................................................................... 6 2.4 Vitrinite Reflectance Analysis........................................................................................................... 6 3.0 FINDINGS........................................................................................................................................ 7 3.1 Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and Grain Density.............................................................................. 7 3.2 Rock Eval......................................................................................................................................... 8 3.3 Vitrinite Reflectance ....................................................................................................................... 11 3.4 Tight Rock Core (Shale) Analysis.................................................................................................. 12 3.5 Total Gas Storage Capacity........................................................................................................... 14 3.5.1 Methane Adsorption Gas Storage Capacity................................................................................ 14 3.5.2 Total Gas Storage Capacity ........................................................................................................ 18 4.0 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................... 21 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1-1 Well Details and Location......................................................................................................... 2 Table 1-2 Detailed Analysis Program....................................................................................................... 4 Table 3-1 Grain Density and TOC Results............................................................................................... 8 Table 3-2 Tight Rock Analysis Results................................................................................................... 13 Table 3-3 Sorption Isotherm Test Parameters and Results................................................................... 16 Table 3-4 Total Gas Storage Capacity Estimates .................................................................................. 20 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1-1 Core Hole Location Map .......................................................................................................... 1 Figure 3-1 Reciprocal Helium Density versus TOC Content..................................................................... 7 Figure 3-2 Kerogen Type........................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 3-3 Kerogen Conversion and Maturity.......................................................................................... 10 Figure 3-4 TOC versus Remaining Hydrocarbon Potential Diagram ...................................................... 11 Figure 3-5 Adsorbed Gas Storage Capacity for ISO052-2...................................................................... 17 Figure 3-6 Adsorbed Gas Storage Capacity for ISO052-7...................................................................... 17 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix I ................................................................................................................................. Grain Density Appendix II ................................................... TOC and Rock Eval Results – Humble Geochemical Services Appendix III ................................................... Vitrinite Reflectance Results - Humble Geochemical Services Appendix IV..........................................................................................Tight Rock Core Analysis – TerraTek Appendix V.................................................................................................. Core Lithology and Photography Appendix VI.....................................................................................................................Adsorption Isotherm TICORA Geosciences, Inc.

Ascent Energy, Inc, Woodford/Caney Shale Reservoir Assessment Page 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the procedures and results of reservoir property analysis of core and cuttings samples from the Woodford and Caney Shale Zones from the five core holes listed in Table 1-1. The samples were obtained from the Oklahoma Geological Survey Core and Sample Library (OGS-C&SL). The core hole locations are also listed by Section, Township and Range in Table 1-1. Figure 1-1 Core Hole Location Map At the request of Mr. John Pinkerton (Ascent Energy), TICORA Geosciences, Inc. (TICORA) conducted analyses on core and cuttings samples collected from the Woodford and Caney Shale Zones. Five of the samples were cutting samples while the remaining samples were from core samples. Table 1-1 differentiates the sample type and depth for each core hole. The cutting sample volumes were very small (<50 grams) TICORA Geosciences, Inc.

Ascent Energy, Inc, Woodford/Caney Shale Reservoir Assessment Page 2 Table 1-1 Well Details and Location Well Name Location County TICORA # Depth Sample Type 362-1 3,600' - 3,610' Woodford Shale Cuttings Jonas #3 Section 17-T5N-R8E Pontotoc Cty, OK 362-2 3,650' - 3,660' Woodford Shale Cuttings 362-3 3,670' - 3,680' Woodford Shale Cuttings 362-4 3,800' - 3,820' Woodford Shale Cuttings Chandler #3 Section 35-T5N-R7E Pontotoc Cty, OK 362-5 3,900' - 3,920' Woodford Shale Cuttings ISO052-1 3,699.6 Woodford Shale Core Holt 1-19 NW1/4, NW1/4, Section 19-T10N-R12E Hughes Cty, OK ISO052-2 3,701.8 Woodford Shale Core ISO052-3 3,707.8 Woodford Shale Core ISO052-4 3,379.6 Woodford Shale Core MFU 5-17 SW1/4, NE1/4, NW1/4 Section 29-T2N-R7E Pontotoc Cty, OK ISO052-5 3,385.0 Woodford Shale Core ISO052-6 3,391.1 Woodford Shale Core EFU 9-41 NW1/4, NE1/4, NE1/4 Section 27-T2N-R7E Pontotoc Cty, OK ISO052-7 3,421.0 Woodford Shale Core ISO052-8 5,373.0 Caney Shale Core Kirby Gilberth 1-20 NW1/4, SW1/4, SE1/4 Section 20-T9N-R2E Pottawatomie Cty, OK ISO052-9 5,376.8 Caney Shale Core TICORA Geosciences, Inc.

Ascent Energy, Inc, Woodford/Caney Shale Reservoir Assessment Page 3 Table 1-2 represents the detailed analysis program conducted by TICORA indicating the samples analyzed by each analysis method. Shale gas reservoirs behave as triple porosity systems that have different gas storage and flow characteristics, partially dependent on varying geological parameters. Gas storage occurs by sorption, compression, and solution. Mass transfer should be by diffusion (driven by concentration gradients) and Darcy flow (driven by pressure gradients). Gas is stored by sorption within the first pore system consisting of micropores (with diameters less than 2 nm) and mesopores (with diameters between 2 and 50 nm). These pore sizes are found within clays and solid organic material. Mass transfer is dominated by diffusion. Although dry clays have the potential for sorption, generally the contribution to gas-in-place volumes from gas sorption within clay is insignificant since the clay was water filled at the time of gas generation. Laboratory measurements of gas storage capacity as a function of organic content are used to quantify gas storage by sorption. The second pore system consists of macropores with sizes greater than 50 nm. Gas is expected to be stored by compression and in solution within liquid hydrocarbons (if any are present) and water. Mass transfer is by a combination of diffusion and Darcy flow in this system. The void volume of this porosity system can be quantified with core porosity measurements and log interpretation. Log interpretation techniques must take in to account the presence of low-density organic material and gas saturations to obtain accurate void volume estimates. The third porosity system consists of natural fractures. Gas is expected to be stored by compression and in solution within liquid hydrocarbons (if any are present) and water. Mass transfer will be due to Darcy flow. Commercial gas production requires that the natural fracture system be present and interconnected. The majority of gas-in-place is contained within the first two porosity systems. It is important to quantify the storage volumes within the first two porosity systems and the natural fracture permeability of the third porosity system. This project obtained estimates of void volumes and matrix permeability as discussed in this report. Well testing or production analysis would be required to determine natural fracture permeability. TICORA Geosciences, Inc.

Ascent Energy, Inc, Woodford/Caney Shale Reservoir Assessment Page 4 Table 1-2 Detailed Analysis Program Premium Sample Preservation Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Helium Grain Density Vitrinite Reflectance Tight Rock Analysis Rock Eval Pyrolysis Sample Depth Isotherm Analysis Core Hole Name TIC No. Shale Zone Sample Handling Sample Type (feet) � � � 362-1 3,600-3,610 Woodford Cuttings Jonas #3 Cuttings � � � 362-2 3,650-3,660 Woodford Cuttings � � � � 362-3 3,670-3,680 Woodford � � � 362-4 3,800-3,820 Woodford Cuttings Chandler #3 � � � � Cuttings 362-5 3,900-3,920 Woodford � � � � � ISO052-1 3,699.6 Woodford Core � � � � � � � � Holt 1-19 Core ISO052-2 3,701.8 Woodford � � � � � Core ISO052-3 3,707.8 Woodford Core � � � � � ISO052-4 3,379.6 Woodford � � � � � MFU 5-17 ISO052-5 3,385.0 Woodford Core � � � � � ISO052-6 3,391.1 Woodford Core � � � � � � � � Core EFU 9-41 ISO052-7 3,421.0 Woodford � � � � � Core ISO052-8 5,373.0 Caney Kirby Gilbreth 1-20 � � � � � Core ISO052-9 5,376.8 Caney TICORA Geosciences, Inc.

Ascent Energy, Inc, Woodford/Caney Shale Reservoir Assessment Page 5 2.0 LABORATORY ACTIVITIES Drill cuttings (<50 grams) from the Jonas #3 and Chandler #3 wells and core samples from the Holt 1-19, MFU 5-17, EFU 9-41, and Kirby Gilbreth 1-20 well were sent to TICORA Geosciences, Inc. in September 2004. There was only sufficient drill cuttings sample to conduct TOC and rock eval pyrolysis. For the slabbed core samples (ISO052) Ascent specified core plug sampling. These plugs were analyzed for TOC, grain density, rock eval, and tight rock analysis. Subsequently the remaining core samples were cut around where plugs samples ISO052-2 and ISO052-7 were processed. These samples were used for methane adsorption isotherm analysis. In addition, four samples were submitted to Humble Geochemical for vitrinite reflectance analysis. Samples were processed using systematic procedures that minimize sample aerial oxidation and aerial desiccation (moisture loss). TICORA uses an in-house improved procedure to air-dry processed samples that differs from the air-drying procedure described in the ASTM Method D3302. The reader should therefore be aware of this when evaluating analysis data reported on an air-dried basis. TICORA’s air- drying procedure attempts not to over-dry samples by only removing surface moisture. These sample methodologies rigorously follow accurate analysis protocols developed by ASTM, the Gas Technology Institute (GTI), and TICORA. 1,2,3 2.1 Helium Density Helium density represents the true powder or grain density of the organic and inorganic matter in a crushed sample. It differs from bulk density in that it does not include the effect of the primary or secondary (i.e. natural fractures) porosity systems. Helium density requires the measurement of sample volume and mass. Sample volume was measured at room temperature conditions on triplicate air-dried samples (representative of each desorption sample) of approximately 100-grams using a helium multipycnometer. Sample volume can be calculated from helium expansion pressure measured by the multipycnometer. Helium is used for volume determination since it enters the coal or shale micropores without adsorption and it does not add moisture to the sample. Sample weight was determined to the nearest 0.001-gram using an electronic balance. Sample density was calculated for all desorption and composite samples by dividing the measured sample weight by calculated sample volume. TICORA conducted all helium density and residual moisture described in this section. 2.2 TOC and Rock Eval Testing The samples were initially dried and crushed. Subsequent treatment with hydrochloric acid effectively removed the carbonate portion of the material. The organic carbon component was measured through combustion (1,300°C) in a furnace while measuring the amount of evolved carbon dioxide using an IR detector. TOC analysis is a comparatively quick and inexpensive procedure that is typically used to effectively screen potential source rock samples. TOC is a measure of the richness of a rock with respect to weight percent organic carbon. True shales can be extremely rich in organic carbon (~10%), but a minimum value for which rocks can be officially deemed source rocks is not always definable, as thermal history, specific variety of organic material, and efficiency of hydrocarbon migration all play a significant role in source rock potential. In general, shales containing less than 0.50 weight percent TOC and carbonates possessing less than 0.20 percent are not regarded as particularly good source rocks. However, when sufficient thickness and natural fracture permeability are present, low organic content shales can serve as productive shale gas reservoirs. Rock Eval pyrolysis is a more advanced geochemical characterization than the TOC procedure. The measurements are based upon heating small samples over the temperature range of 300 to 550 °C. Four specific parameters are obtained from the analysis as follows: TICORA Geosciences, Inc.

Ascent Energy, Inc, Woodford/Caney Shale Reservoir Assessment Page 6 1. S1 represents free hydrocarbons in the source rock, volatilized at 300 ºC. 2. S2 is an estimate of the hydrocarbons generated in the subsurface under native-state conditions and is influenced by the amount of hydrocarbons produced by the thermal cracking of kerogen types. 3. S3 represents the amount of carbon dioxide produced from organic sources. The carbon dioxide is collected over a specific temperature range (300 to 390°C) such that contributions from inorganic carbonates are avoided. Inorganic sources of carbon dioxide are commonly generated at higher temperatures. 4. Tmax represents the temperature at which hydrocarbon generation occurs at its maximum rate during pyrolysis. Thermocouples are used to monitor this important event. Third-party commercial laboratory Humble Geochemical Services conducted the TOC and Rock Eval testing. 2.3 Adsorption Gas Storage Capacity Analysis The adsorption isotherm measures the gas storage capacity of organic material (kerogen) as a function of increasing pressure, as described by the Langmuir equation 9 . The measurement is performed on crushed analysis samples equilibrated to the air-dry, moisture content at the reservoir midpoint temperature and over a series of increasing pressure steps that range from 25-50 pounds per square inch absolute (psia) to an endpoint pressure that exceeds the initial reservoir pressure. Gas storage capacity is highly dependent upon pressure, temperature, moisture content, organic composition and thermal maturity. The proper measurement and interpretation of gas content and gas storage capacity data enables valid and very accurate assessments of the initial gas saturation level, the critical desorption pressure, the gas volume abandoned in-place, and the ultimate recovery factor. The gas saturation level is the ratio between the initial gas content and the initial gas storage capacity. The critical desorption pressure is used to determine the amount of draw down, if any, that is required before gas can be produced from the reservoir. If the operator anticipates an average abandonment reservoir pressure, it is possible to estimate the ultimate reserves and the volume of gas that will be abandoned in-place. The recovery factor is the ratio between the initial gas content minus the abandoned gas content and the initial gas content. 2.4 Vitrinite Reflectance Analysis Third-party commercial laboratory, Humble Geochemical Services conducted the vitrinite reflectance analysis and is provided in the Appendices. TICORA Geosciences, Inc.

Ascent Energy, Inc, Woodford/Caney Shale Reservoir Assessment Page 7 3.0 FINDINGS This section provides summaries and discussions of the analysis results. Laboratory reports (raw data) are provided in the Appendices. 3.1 Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and Grain Density Humble Geochemical Services (Humble) performed total organic carbon (TOC) analysis of all samples using the Leco method. The Humble report is included as Appendix IV. The density of shale varies as a function of its bulk composition 1, 4 . Since the mineral matter component of the shale has a significantly higher density than the organic matter component, the bulk density of shale varies directly as a function of its mineral matter content. Therefore a good relationship can be established between grain densities versus dry total organic carbon. For the ISO052 samples Figure 3-1 illustrates this well. Table 3-1 summarizes all grain density and TOC Results. Grain density results are summarized in Appendix I and TOC results are summarized in Appendix II. Figure 3-1 Reciprocal Helium Density versus TOC Content 0.20 Holt 1-19 MFU 5-17 Total Organic Carbon, weight fraction EFU 9-41 0.15 Kirby Gilbreth 1-20 0.10 0.05 y = -0.1477x + 0.4458 R 2 = 0.9586 0.00 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00 Grain Density, g/cm³ TICORA Geosciences, Inc.

Ascent Energy, Inc, Woodford/Caney Shale Reservoir Assessment Page 8 Table 3-1 Grain Density and TOC Results Total Sample Depth Grain Organic Core Hole Name TIC No. Shale Zone Density Carbon (feet) (g/cm³) Weight % 362-1 3,600-3,610 Woodford N/D 2.55 Jonas #3 362-2 3,650-3,660 Woodford N/D 3.66 362-3 3,670-3,680 Woodford N/D 4.19 362-4 3,800-3,820 Woodford N/D 5.91 Chandler #3 362-5 3,900-3,920 Woodford N/D 5.70 2.480 7.86 ISO052-1 3,699.6 Woodford Holt 1-19 ISO052-2 3,701.8 Woodford 2.569 7.09 ISO052-3 3,707.8 Woodford 2.491 8.09 ISO052-4 3,379.6 Woodford 2.222 11.28 MFU 5-17 ISO052-5 3,385.0 Woodford 2.275 11.15 ISO052-6 3,391.1 Woodford 2.084 14.34 EFU 9-41 ISO052-7 3,421.0 Woodford 2.228 12.07 ISO052-8 5,373.0 Caney 2.337 9.48 Kirby Gilbreth 1-20 ISO052-9 5,376.8 Caney 2.341 9.34 N/D – Not Determined. Insufficient sample volume. 3.2 Rock Eval Rock Eval pyrolysis is a more advanced geochemical characterization than the TOC procedure. The measurements are based upon heating small samples over the temperature range of 300 to 550 °C. Four specific parameters are obtained from the analysis as follows: 1. S1 represents free hydrocarbons in the source rock, volatilized at 300 ºC. 2. S2 is an estimate of the hydrocarbons generated in the subsurface under native-state conditions and is influenced by the amount of hydrocarbons produced by the thermal cracking of kerogen types. 3. S3 represents the amount of carbon dioxide produced from organic sources. The carbon dioxide is collected over a specific temperature range (300 to 390°C) such that contributions from inorganic carbonates are avoided. Inorganic sources of carbon dioxide are commonly generated at higher temperatures. 4. Tmax represents the temperature at which hydrocarbon generation occurs at its maximum rate during pyrolysis. Thermocouples are used to monitor this important event. Third-party commercial laboratory Humble Geochemical Services performed Rock Eval pyrolysis on all samples. The Humble report is included as Appendix II. Kerogen (organic matter) type can be characterized by two indices: (1) the hydrogen index (S2 x 100/TOC) and (2) the oxygen index (S3 x 100/TOC). When plotted against one another, a plot similar to the Van Krevelen diagram for elemental kerogen analysis (modified by Waples for this purpose) is obtained as illustrated in Figure 3-2. Samples TICORA Geosciences, Inc.

Ascent Energy, Inc, Woodford/Caney Shale Reservoir Assessment Page 9 that follow the line indicated for Type I kerogen are mainly alphatic in nature, are derived from algal lipids, and can have very high oil or gas generating potential. Type II kerogen is predominately of a naphthenic nature and is usually formed from marine organic matter (plankton) in a reducing environment. The oil generating potential of type II kerogen is high although lower than for Type I. Type III kerogen is mainly aromatic in nature and is formed from terrestrial higher plants. This type of kerogen is similar to humic coals. The oil generating potential is low and dry gas is generated primarily from Type III kerogen. Based on Figure 3-2 the Jonas #3 well is in between a Types III and IV kerogen (gas prone), the Holt 1-19 well is a Type III kerogen (gas prone), and the Chandler #3, MFU 5-17, EFU 9-41, and Kirby Gilbreth 1-20 are Type II Kerogen (oil prone). Figure 3-2 Kerogen Type 1000 Jonas #3 900 Chandler #3 Type I Oil Prone Holt 1-19 800 MFU 5-17 700 EFU 9-41 HYDROGEN INDEX (HI, mg HC / g TOC) Kirby Gilbreth 1-20 600 Type II (usu. marine) Oil Prone 500 400 300 M ixed Type II / III Oil / Gas Prone 200 Type III Gas Prone 100 Type IV Gas Prone 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 OXYGEN INDEX (OI, mg CO 2 /g TOC) TICORA Geosciences, Inc.

Ascent Energy, Inc, Woodford/Caney Shale Reservoir Assessment Page 10 Adding the S1 and S2 parameters (S1+S2) and expressing this value in terms of kg/ton of rock can also yield a useful parameter for the evaluation of source rock potential. The evaluation guidelines are as follows: • Higher than 6 kg/ton: good source rock for oil; • Between 2 and 6 kg/ton; moderate source potential for oil; • Less than 2 kg/ton; and poor for oil, some potential for gas. Thermal maturation can be examined using Tmax, which typically increases with depth. Although values commonly vary from laboratory to laboratory, the following subdivision is normally followed: temperatures between 400 and 430°C correspond to the immature zone; temperatures between 430 and 470°C define the major interval of oil production; and temperatures above 470 °C represents the interval where gas rather than oil is generated. The Tmax values for samples for the MFU 5-17, EFU 9-41, and Kirby Gilbreth 1-20 wells correspond to immature shales where as on the other hand the Jonas #3, Chandler #3, and Holt 1-19 well correspond to the major interval of oil production. The Production Index (PI) S1/(S1+S2) can also to evaluate source rock potential. Figure 3-3 illustrates this well. PI is indicative of the conversion of kerogen into free hydrocarbons. The evaluation guidelines are as follows: • 0.00 to 0.08: immature; • 0.08 to 0.50: Oil Window; • > 0.50: Gas Window. Figure 3-3 Kerogen Conversion and Maturity 1.00 Condensate - Immature Oil Zone Dry Gas Zone Wet Gas 0.90 Zone Jonas #3 0.80 Chandler #3 0.70 PRODUCTION INDEX (PI) Holt 1-19 Stained or 0.60 MFU 5-17 Contaminated EFU 9-41 0.50 Kirby Gilbreth 1-20 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 Low Level Conversion High Level Conversion - Expulsion 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20 MATURITY (calculated vitrinite reflectance from Tmax) TICORA Geosciences, Inc.

Ascent Energy, Inc, Woodford/Caney Shale Reservoir Assessment Page 11 TOC values, determined by the Leco method, these core samples ranged from 2.55 to 14.34 weight percent. Another relationship exists that is useful in the evaluation of the hydrocarbon generation potential of shales. The relationship of TOC plotted against the value for Remaining Hydrocarbon Potential indicates the propensity for generation of oil in a given sample. In this instance, the plot indicates the presence of Type II kerogens appear in the MFU 5-17, EFU 9-41, Kirby Gilberth 1-20, and Chandler #3 wells, and that Type III kerogens appear in the Holt 1-19 and Jonas #3 wells. Figure 3-4 illustrates these results. Figure 3-4 TOC versus Remaining Hydrocarbon Potential Diagram 300 Type I Oil Prone TYPE II Oil Prone REMAINING HYDROCARBON POTENTIAL (mg HC/g Rock) usu. lacustrine (usu. marine) 250 Holt 1-19 MFU 5-17 EFU 9-41 200 Mixed Type II / III Kirby Gilberth 1-20 Oil / Gas Prone Jonas #3 150 Chandler #3 100 Type III Organic Gas Prone Lean 50 Dry Gas Prone 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON (TOC, wt.% ) 3.3 Vitrinite Reflectance This analysis was conducted to quantify thermal maturity for samples 362-3, 362-5, ISO052-2, and ISO052-7. Vitrinite reflectance values are generally divided into the following categories of thermal maturity: • Immature: up to 0.50% • Early oil window maturity: 0.50% to 0.70% • Peak oil window maturity: 0.7% to 1.1% The results from the Humble Geochemical Services are included in Appendix III. Samples ISO052-2 (Holt 1-19) and 362-3 (Jonas #3) appear to be of high thermal maturity and fall within the peak oil maturity, whereas on the other hand samples ISO052-7 (EFU 9-41) and 362-5 (Chandler #3) are in the early oil maturity window. TICORA Geosciences, Inc.

Ascent Energy, Inc, Woodford/Caney Shale Reservoir Assessment Page 12 3.4 Tight Rock Core (Shale) Analysis CoreLab performed unconventional core (shale) analyses including: pulse-decay permeability and retort saturation analyses on core samples ISO052-2 through ISO052-9 to determine effect of fluid saturation and matrix permeability, effective porosity, and gas-filled porosity. The Core Lab report is included in Appendix IV. Table 3-2 summarizes the measured data. Retort saturation measurements were performed on samples taken adjacent to the pulse-decay permeability plug locations. The total weight and bulk volume were determined before crushing to determine bulk density. The porosity, grain density, and fluid saturation were calculated from a representative portion after crushing. The samples were crushed and sieved until a significant portion passed a -12 mesh (1.70 mm) sieve and was retained on a -25 mesh (0.71 mm) sieve. A split of this sample was weighed and placed in a retort vessel and heated to 220°F to collect interstitial water. Once fluid production had ceased, the temperature was increased to 1,200°F to remove any remaining fluids including: bound water, interstitial oil, and cracked kerogen hydrocarbons. A fresh sieved sample was then weighed and the partial grain volume (grain volume plus interstitial fluid volume) of each sample was determined by Boyle’s Law technique in order to measure the gas-filled pore space (bulk volume minus the partial grain volume). The porosity, bulk density, grain density, and fluid saturation were then calculated. The definition of each of these terms follows: • Effective porosity is the interconnected pore volume in the rock expressed as a percentage of the bulk volume. • Gas-filled porosity is the pore space that is gas filled expressed as a percentage of the bulk volume. This is equal to the effective porosity multiplied by the gas saturation divided by 100. The gas saturation in this case is 100 minus the water and hydrocarbon saturations (expressed as percentages). • Interstitial water saturation is the percentage of the effective porosity occupied by water. • Bound water is water bound between clay layers (not occupying effective pore space) as a percentage of the bulk volume. • Bound hydrocarbons are oil bound in organic material (not occupying effective pore space) as a percentage of the bulk volume. • Condensation/Oil saturation is the percentage of the effective porosity occupied by oil or condensate. These results will be used in a later section of this report to estimate potential gas storage capacity in both free and sorbed states. TICORA Geosciences, Inc.

Ascent Energy, Inc, Woodford/Caney Shale Reservoir Assessment Page 13 Table 3-2 Tight Rock Analysis Results Parameter Units ISO052-2 ISO052-3 ISO052-4 ISO052-5 ISO052-6 ISO052-7 ISO052-8 ISO052-9 Effective porosity vol. fraction 0.0585 0.0371 0.0310 0.0529 0.0672 0.0953 0.0619 0.0722 Water saturation vol. fraction 0.4345 0.6117 0.8096 0.7478 0.5478 0.3434 0.5685 0.3735 g/cm 3 Bulk density 2.473 2.396 2.191 2.213 2.019 2.123 2.245 2.282 g/cm 3 Grain Density 2.569 2.491 2.222 2.275 2.084 2.228 2.337 2.341 Mobil Oil Saturation % of PV 0.00 0.00 8.10 2.80 2.74 1.79 3.39 3.26 Gas filled porosity % of BV 3.31 1.44 0.34 1.19 2.85 6.08 2.46 4.29 Bound Hydrocarbon Saturation % of BV 0.48 0.53 12.75 7.22 11.71 7.33 6.46 7.01 Bound Clay Water % of BV 5.38 5.93 6.04 7.22 7.32 6.84 6.22 6.35 TICORA Geosciences, Inc.

Ascent Energy, Inc, Woodford/Caney Shale Reservoir Assessment Page 14 3.5 Total Gas Storage Capacity The majority of the gas storage capacity in shale gas reservoirs is a combination of multi-component gas mixtures adsorbed within organic material and the gas storage capacity of the macro-porosity (free gas). Adsorption, free gas and dissolved gas storage capacity are discussed in this section. 3.5.1 Methane Adsorption Gas Storage Capacity Individual methane adsorption isotherms were measured by TICORA on samples ISO052-2 (Holt 1-19) and ISO052-7 (EFU 9-41). Sample properties and Langmuir coefficients are summarized in Table 3-3. The isotherm analysis determines the volume of methane that is adsorbed upon the organic content within the shale matrix at a given experimental pressure and temperature. The mass balance with an absorbing gas is given by Equation 4.1. ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ p M p M p M p M ( ) + = + + − ˆ r1 s1 r2 s2 V V V V n n M [4.1] r v1 r v2 2 1 z RT z RT z RT z RT r1 r1 s1 s1 r2 r2 s2 s2 where: n 1 number of sorbed molecules at the start of the pressure step, lbmoles n 2 number of sorbed molecules at the end of the pressure step, lbmoles p r1 initial reference cell pressure p r2 final reference cell pressure p s1 initial sample cell pressure p s2 final sample cell pressure V r reference cell volume V v void volume within the sample cell (includes macroporosity) ˆ M molecular weight T r1 initial reference cell temperature T r2 final reference cell temperature T s1 initial sample cell temperature T s2 final sample cell temperature z r1 initial compressibility factor in the reference cell z r2 final compressibility factor in the reference cell z s1 initial compressibility factor in the sample cell z s2 final compressibility factor in the sample cell Solving for the change in the number of molecules in the sorbed state and eliminating the common molecular weight results in Equation 4.2. ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ p p p p − = − + − ⎜ r1 r2 ⎟ ⎜ s1 s2 ⎟ n n V V [4.2] 2 1 r v ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ z RT z RT z RT z RT r1 r1 r2 r2 s1 s1 s2 s2 The void volume is reduced by the volume of the sorbed phase. Therefore, the number of sorbed molecules determined by Equation 10 must be corrected as discussed below. The number of molecules can be converted to the volume of gas at standard temperature and pressure (STP) with Equation 4.3. TICORA Geosciences, Inc.

Ascent Energy, Inc, Woodford/Caney Shale Reservoir Assessment Page 15 nz RT = sc sc V [4.3] s p sc where: sorbed gas volume at STP, ft 3 V s z sc real gas deviation factor at STP, dimensionless T sc temperature at standard conditions, degrees Rankine p sc pressure at standard conditions, psia For example, 1 lbmole of methane at 14.73 and 60 o F, occupies a volume of 377.8504 scf as z sc is generally 0.998 for methane at these conditions. The gas storage capacity at the stabilized sample cell pressure and temperature is then computed with Equation 4.4 by dividing by the sample mass that was measured before placing the sample in the sample cell. 2000V ′ = s G [4.4] s m m where: G’ s Gibbs isotherm gas storage capacity, scf/ton m m material mass, lbm Note that the material mass is often reported in grams. Grams are converted to lbm by multiplying grams by 2.204622622(10 -3 ). Gas storage capacity in cm 3 /g is equal to the gas storage capacity in units of scf/ton divided by 32.036929. The isotherm determined in this manner is referred to as a Gibbs isotherm due to the simplification assumed by Gibbs during his study of sorption thermodynamics. The resulting Gibbs isotherm can be corrected to the true adsorption isotherm through the use of Equation 4.5. The free gas density is computed in the normal fashion at the stabilized sample cell end point pressure and temperature conditions. The sorbed phase density is assumed to be equal to the liquid density of the molecules of interest at the atmospheric pressure boiling point. ′ G = s G [4.5] ρ s − f 1 ρ s where: G ′ Gibb’s isotherm storage capacity, scf/ton s G s total isotherm storage capacity, scf/ton ρ f free gas density, lbm/ft 3 ρ s sorbed gas density, lbm/ft 3 Adsorption isotherm data are critical because isotherm behavior indicates the ultimate gas recovery that can be obtained at a specific reservoir pressure. The gas storage capacity of coal typically increases non- linearly as pressure increases and decreases as temperature, moisture, and ash content increase. Gas storage capacity also varies as a function of the type of gas species, shale kerogen composition, and organic material thermal maturity. The Langmuir equation (Equation 4.6) was used to model the variation of gas storage capacity as a function of pressure. 2 TICORA Geosciences, Inc.

Ascent Energy, Inc, Woodford/Caney Shale Reservoir Assessment Page 16 p = G G [4.6] + s sL p p L where: G s gas storage capacity, scf/ton Langmuir pressure, psia p L G SL Langmuir storage capacity, scf/ton p R Mid-point reservoir pressure, psia As shown in Equation 4.6 the Langmuir storage capacity and Langmuir pressure are required to calculate the gas storage capacity using the Langmuir equation. The Langmuir storage capacity is the gas storage capacity of the sample at infinite pressure and the Langmuir pressure is the pressure at which the gas storage capacity of the sample equals one-half the Langmuir storage capacity value. 3.5.1.1 Holt 1-19 (Sample ISO052-2) Adsorption isotherm data were used to estimate methane storage capacity (i.e. assuming sorbed gas is 100% methane) for core sample ISO052-2, the Langmuir model predicts an air-dry based methane storage capacity of 53.94 scf//ton at an initial reservoir pressure of 1,602.75 psia (based on a 0.433 psi/ft pressure gradient). Langmuir and gas storage parameters have been summarized in Table 3-3. Gas storage capacity data for sample ISO052-2 are illustrated in Figure 3-5. 3.5.1.2 EFU 9-41 (Sample ISO052-7) Adsorption isotherm data were used to estimate methane storage capacity (i.e. assuming sorbed gas is 100% methane) for core sample ISO052-7, the Langmuir model predicts an air-dry based methane storage capacity of 115.53 scf//ton at an initial reservoir pressure of 1,481.51 psia (based on a 0.433 psi/ft pressure gradient). Langmuir and gas storage parameters have been summarized in Table 3-3. Gas storage capacity data for sample ISO052-7 are illustrated in Figure 3-6. Table 3-3 Sorption Isotherm Test Parameters and Results Sample Information Well Holt 1-19 EFU 9-41 Reservoir Woodford Woodford Sample No. ISO052-2 ISO052-7 Sample Type Core Core Depth (drill depth) feet ~3,701.8 ~3,421.0 Gas Storage Capacity Parameters Reservoir Pressure based on 0.433 psi/ft psia 1,602.75 1,481.51 Measurement Temperature °F 130.0 130.0 Total Organic Carbon wt. % 7.09 12.07 Helium Density, (air-dry basis) g/cm³ 2.569 2.337 Adsorbate Methane Langmuir Parameters Methane Langmuir Pressure psia 2,276.15 1,885.97 Methane Langmuir Storage Capacity (100% Kerogen basis) scf/ton 1,841.28 2,175.66 Methane Langmuir Storage Capacity (air-dry basis) scf/ton 130.55 262.60 Adsorbed Gas Storage Capacity Results Kerogen Adsorbed Storage Capacity at Reservoir Pressure scf/ton 760.81 957.17 In-Situ Gas Storage Capacity at Reservoir Pressure scf/ton 53.94 115.53 TICORA Geosciences, Inc.

Ascent Energy, Inc, Woodford/Caney Shale Reservoir Assessment Page 17 Figure 3-5 Adsorbed Gas Storage Capacity for ISO052-2 100 Experimentally Determined Storage Capacity In-Situ Methane Storage Capacity, scf/ton Experimentally Determined Langmuir Fit 80 95% Confidence Interval Storage Capacity Uncertainty 60 40 20 Experimentally Determined Basis 0 0 400 800 1,200 1,600 2,000 2,400 Pressure, psia Figure 3-6 Adsorbed Gas Storage Capacity for ISO052-7 200 Experimentally Determined Storage Capacity In-Situ Methane Storage Capacity, scf/ton 180 Experimentally Determined Langmuir Fit 160 95% Confidence Interval 140 Storage Capacity Uncertainty 120 100 80 60 40 20 Experimentally Determined Basis 0 0 400 800 1,200 1,600 2,000 2,400 Pressure, psia TICORA Geosciences, Inc.

Ascent Energy, Inc, Woodford/Caney Shale Reservoir Assessment Page 18 3.5.2 Total Gas Storage Capacity The total gas storage capacity is the sum of the adsorbed gas storage capacity, the free gas storage capacity of the macro-porosity containing both free and dissolved gas components, and the free gas storage capacity within natural fractures. Equation 4.7 lists this relationship. This section discusses the range in these possible volumes ignoring the negligible contribution from the natural fracture system. = + + G G G G [4.7] st s sf sd where: G st total gas storage capacity, scf/ton G s sorbed gas storage capacity, scf/ton G sf free gas storage capacity, scf/ton G sd dissolved gas storage capacity, scf/ton The special core analysis data are useful for estimating the proportion of the total gas content that is the result of free gas within the macropore system. Equation 4.8 can be used for this purpose. 4 ( ) φ − 32.0368 1 S = w G [4.8] ρ cf B g where: G cf gas content of the free gas phase, scf/ton φ macroporosity, fraction of bulk volume S w water saturation within macroporosity, fraction of macroporosity ρ average bulk density, g/cm 3 B g gas formation volume factor, reservoir volume / surface volume The gas formation volume factor is defined in the usual manner by Equation 4.9. 5 zT p = sc B [4.9] g p z T sc sc where: p pressure of interest, psia temperature of interest, o R ( o R = o F + 459.67) T z real gas deviation factor at p and T, dimensionless p sc pressure at standard conditions, psia temperature at standard conditions, o R T sc z sc z factor at standard conditions, dimensionless In this report, standard conditions are 60°F, and 14.696 psia. The z factor at standard conditions for hydrocarbon gases is usually 0.998. The free gas was calculated using equation 4.7 for each equilibrium pressure of the methane adsorption isotherm and reflects the volume of methane that can be compressed within the available macropore system (macro-porosity volume minus the volume saturated with reservoir water) of the shale for a given pressure and temperature. TICORA Geosciences, Inc.

Ascent Energy, Inc, Woodford/Caney Shale Reservoir Assessment Page 19 The dissolved gas was computed similarly using equation 4.10 for each equilibrium pressure of the methane adsorption isotherm analysis and represents the volume of methane that can be stored within the reservoir water at a given salinity, pressure and temperature. Gas is also dissolved in the water contained within the secondary porosity system. Equation 4.10 presents a relationship for this volume 5 . φ 5.706 S R = w sw G [4.10] ρ cD B w where: GcD dissolved gas content, scf/ton R sw solution gas-water ratio, scf/STB B w water formation volume factor, reservoir volume / surface volume φ macroporosity, fraction of bulk volume S w water saturation within macroporosity, fraction of macroporosity ρ average bulk density, g/cm 3 The possible contribution to the total gas storage capacity for adsorbed, free, and dissolved gas components at reservoir conditions is summarized in Table 3-6 (based on 0.433 psi/ft pressure gradient). Since the sorption data may include gas dissolution in hydrocarbons, solution in hydrocarbons is not explicitly included in the calculations. The free gas contribution is highly dependent upon the effective porosity and the water saturation within the effective porosity. TICORA Geosciences, Inc.

Ascent Energy, Inc, Woodford/Caney Shale Reservoir Assessment Page 20 Table 3-4 Total Gas Storage Capacity Estimates Parameter Units ISO052-1 ISO052-2 ISO052-3 ISO052-4 ISO052-5 ISO052-6 ISO052-7 ISO052-8 ISO052-9 Effective porosity vol. fraction N/A 0.0585 0.0371 0.031 0.0529 0.0672 0.0953 0.0619 0.0722 Water saturation vol. fraction N/A 0.4345 0.6117 0.8096 0.7478 0.5478 0.3434 0.5685 0.3735 g/cm 3 Bulk density 2.754 2.473 2.396 2.191 2.213 2.019 2.123 2.245 2.282 Reservoir pressure psia 1601.9 1602.9 1605.5 1463.4 1465.7 1468.3 1481.3 2326.5 2328.2 Reservoir temperature °F 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 z sc dimensionless 0.9980 0.9980 0.9980 0.9980 0.9980 0.9980 0.9980 0.9980 0.9980 z dimensionless 0.8969 0.8968 0.8967 0.9025 0.9024 0.9022 0.9017 0.8817 0.8817 Salinity weight % 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Solution gas-water ratio scf/STB 9.35 9.35 9.36 8.78 8.79 8.80 8.85 12.01 12.02 Water formation volume factor res.vol/surf.vol 1.0121 1.0121 1.0121 1.0123 1.0123 1.0123 1.0123 1.0112 1.0112 Gas formation volume factor res.vol/surf.vol 0.0094 0.0093 0.0093 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0102 0.0063 0.0063 Adsorbed gas storage capacity scf/ton N/D 53.94 N/D N/D N/D N/D 115.53 N/D N/D Free gas storage capacity scf/ton N/A 45.84 20.64 8.38 18.78 46.96 92.84 60.19 100.35 Dissolved gas capacity scf/ton N/A 0.54 0.50 0.57 0.89 0.90 0.77 1.06 0.80 1 1 1 1 1 1 Total gas storage capacity scf/ton N/A 100.32 21.14 8.94 19.66 47.87 209.14 61.25 101.16 1. Total gas storage capacity does not include adsorbed gas storage capacity. TICORA Geosciences, Inc.

Ascent Energy, Inc, Woodford/Caney Shale Reservoir Assessment Page 21 4.0 REFERENCES 1. McLennan, J.D., Schafer, P.S., and Pratt, T.J.: A Guide to Determining Coalbed Gas Content , Gas Research Institute Report GRI-94/0393, Chicago, IL (1995), 182p. 2. Mavor, M.J. and Nelson, C.R.: Coalbed Reservoir Gas-In-Place Analysis , Gas Research Institute Report GRI-97/0263, Chicago, IL (1997), 144 p. 3. 2001 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 05.05 Gaseous Fuels; Coal and Coke , American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA (2001). 4. Mavor, M.J., Bereskihn, S.R., Robinson, J.R., and Pratt, T.J.: Lewis Shale Gas Resource and Production Potential , Gas Research Institute, Report No. GRI-03/0037, Chicago, Il (March 2003) pp. 4-47 5. Whitson, C.H. and Brule, M.R.: Phase Behavior , Monograph Volume 20, Henry L. Doherty Series, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, TX (2000) p. 20. TICORA Geosciences, Inc.

Appendix I Ascent Energy, Inc Holt 1-19, MFY 5-17, EFU 9-41, & Kirby Gilbreth 1-20 Grain Density TICORA Geosciences, Inc

Multipycnometer Helium Density Summary True Powder Density TICORA No.: 362 Client: Ascent Energy Well Name: Shale Assessment wells Dates Performed: 12/10/04-14/10/04 Density, g/cm 3 Depth Sample No. Standard Mean Density g/cm 3 feet A B C Deviation 52-1 3,699.60 2.472 2.481 2.486 0.007 2.480 52-2 3,701.80 2.564 2.572 2.571 0.004 2.569 52-3 3,707.80 2.488 2.491 2.494 0.003 2.491 52-4 3,379.60 2.220 2.226 2.221 0.003 2.222 052-5 3,385.00 2.276 2.274 2.274 0.001 2.275 052-6 3,391.10 2.083 2.085 2.083 0.001 2.084 052-7 3,421.00 2.221 2.231 2.231 0.006 2.228 052-8 5,373.00 2.335 2.336 2.339 0.002 2.337 052-9 5,376.80 2.339 2.342 2.342 0.002 2.341 TICORA Geosciences, Inc. \\onyx\TICORA\Projects\ISO052\Bulk Properties\ISO052_Den

Multipycnometer Helium Density Work Sheet True Powder Density Ticora No.: ISO052 Operator: MAW Client: #N/A Pycnometer: 2 Well Name: #N/A Date: 10/12/04 Sample No.: 52-1-A Time Start: 14:00 Depth Interval (feet): 0.00 Time Finish: 14:20 Sample Description: Crushed Ambient Temperature (°F): 69.0 Outgassing Conditions: Purged for 2-minutes at 1.5 psi Cell Size: Large (covered) Reference Volume (V R ), cm 3 : Cell Weight, grams: 25.201 79.661 Cell Volume (V c ), cm 3 : Sample + Cell, grams: 124.516 147.134 Sample Weight, grams: 99.315 DATA P 1 17.033 P 2 7.271 V S 40.182 Sample Density (D S ), g/cm 3 2.472 OPERATIONAL EQUATIONS V S =V c -V R ((P 1 /P 2 )-1) D S =M S /V S D S = Sample Density (cm 3 /g) V R = Reference Volume (cm 3 ) M S = Sample Weight (g) P 1 = Pressure of Reference Volume V S = Sample Volume (cm 3 ) P 2 = Pressure of System V c = Volume of Sample Cell (cm 3 ) TICORA Geosciences, Inc \\onyx\TICORA\Projects\ISO052\Bulk Properties\ISO052_Den

Multipycnometer Helium Density Work Sheet True Powder Density Ticora No.: ISO052 Operator: MAW Client: #N/A Pycnometer: 2 Well Name: #N/A Date: 10/12/04 Sample No.: 52-1-B Time Start: 14:00 Depth Interval (feet): 0.00 Time Finish: 14:20 Sample Description: Crushed Ambient Temperature (°F): 69.0 Outgassing Conditions: Purged for 2-minutes at 1.5 psi Cell Size: Large (covered) Reference Volume (V R ), cm 3 : Cell Weight, grams: 25.201 79.661 Cell Volume (V c ), cm 3 : Sample + Cell, grams: 124.516 147.134 Sample Weight, grams: 99.315 DATA P 1 17.052 P 2 7.273 V S 40.025 Sample Density (D S ), g/cm 3 2.481 OPERATIONAL EQUATIONS V S =V c -V R ((P 1 /P 2 )-1) D S =M S /V S D S = Sample Density (cm 3 /g) V R = Reference Volume (cm 3 ) M S = Sample Weight (g) P 1 = Pressure of Reference Volume V S = Sample Volume (cm 3 ) P 2 = Pressure of System V c = Volume of Sample Cell (cm 3 ) TICORA Geosciences, Inc \\onyx\TICORA\Projects\ISO052\Bulk Properties\ISO052_Den

Multipycnometer Helium Density Work Sheet True Powder Density Ticora No.: ISO052 Operator: MAW Client: #N/A Pycnometer: 2 Well Name: #N/A Date: 10/12/04 Sample No.: 52-1-C Time Start: 14:00 Depth Interval (feet): 0.00 Time Finish: 14:20 Sample Description: Crushed Ambient Temperature (°F): 69.0 Outgassing Conditions: Purged for 2-minutes at 1.5 psi Cell Size: Large (covered) Reference Volume (V R ), cm 3 : Cell Weight, grams: 25.201 79.661 Cell Volume (V c ), cm 3 : Sample + Cell, grams: 124.516 147.134 Sample Weight, grams: 99.315 DATA P 1 17.063 P 2 7.275 V S 39.956 Sample Density (D S ), g/cm 3 2.486 OPERATIONAL EQUATIONS V S =V c -V R ((P 1 /P 2 )-1) D S =M S /V S D S = Sample Density (cm 3 /g) V R = Reference Volume (cm 3 ) M S = Sample Weight (g) P 1 = Pressure of Reference Volume V S = Sample Volume (cm 3 ) P 2 = Pressure of System V c = Volume of Sample Cell (cm 3 ) TICORA Geosciences, Inc \\onyx\TICORA\Projects\ISO052\Bulk Properties\ISO052_Den

Appendix II Ascent Energy, Inc Holt 1-19, MFY 5-17, EFU 9-41, & Kirby Gilbreth 1-20 TOC and Rock Eval Results Humble Geochemical Services

TOC and ROCK-EVAL DATA REPORT Ticora Geosciences Notes HGS Sample Sample TOC S1 S2 S3 Tmax Cal. Meas. HI OI S2/S3 S1/TOC PI Checks Pyrogram ( o C) No. Id. Type %Ro %Ro 04-2593-089834 ISO052-1 ground rock 7.86 2.85 9.70 0.42 454 1.01 123 5 23 36 0.23 c n 04-2593-089835 ISO052-2 ground rock 7.09 2.87 10.34 0.23 438 0.72 0.77 146 3 45 40 0.22 n 04-2593-089836 ISO052-3 ground rock 8.09 2.90 9.59 0.29 443 0.81 119 4 33 36 0.23 n 04-2593-089837 ISO052-4 ground rock 11.28 4.98 64.49 0.69 428 0.54 572 6 93 44 0.07 n 04-2593-089838 ISO052-5 ground rock 11.15 4.88 54.27 0.55 424 0.47 487 5 99 44 0.08 n 04-2593-089839 ISO052-6 ground rock 14.34 7.12 75.88 1.16 422 0.44 529 8 65 50 0.09 n 04-2593-089840 ISO052-7 ground rock 12.07 4.82 59.47 0.81 427 0.53 0.62 493 7 73 40 0.07 n 04-2593-089841 ISO052-8 ground rock 9.48 4.24 45.96 0.69 428 0.54 485 7 67 45 0.08 n 04-2593-089842 ISO052-9 ground rock 9.34 4.66 51.47 0.49 428 0.54 551 5 105 50 0.08 c n 362-1 Drill Cuttings 2.55 0.13 1.58 0.76 438 0.72 62 30 2 5 0.08 c n 362-2 Drill Cuttings 3.66 0.24 1.04 0.86 436 0.69 28 24 1 7 0.19 n 362-3 Drill Cuttings 4.19 0.35 2.70 0.61 438 0.72 0.85 64 15 4 8 0.11 n 362-4 Drill Cuttings 5.91 3.27 31.93 0.27 437 0.71 540 5 118 55 0.09 n 362-5 Drill Cuttings 5.70 3.40 28.85 0.32 435 0.67 0.67 506 6 90 60 0.11 c n Notes: Note: "-1" indicates not measured or meaningless ratio c = analysis checked and confirmed * Tmax data not reliable due to poor S2 peak HI = hydrogen index = S2 x 100 / TOC OI = oxygen index = S3 x 100 / TOC Pyrogram: TOC = weight percent organic carbon in rock S1/TOC = normalized oil content = S1 x 100 / TOC n=normal S1, S2 = mg hydrocarbons per gram of rock PI = production index = S1 / (S1+S2) ltS2sh = low temperature S2 shoulder S3 = mg carbon dioxide per gram of rock Cal. %Ro = calculated vitrinite reflectance based on Tmax ltS2p = low temperature S2 peak Tmax = o C Measured %Ro = measured vitrinite reflectance htS2p = high temperature S2 peak f = flat S2 peak Humble Geochemical Services Division Page 1

KEROGEN QUALITY Ticora Geosciences 60 Type I Oil Prone TYPE II Oil Prone REMAINING HYDROCARBON POTENTIAL (mg HC/g Rock) usu. lacustrine (usu. marine) 50 Mixed Type II / III Oil / Gas Prone 40 30 Type III Gas Prone 20 Organic Dry Lean Gas Prone 10 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON (TOC, wt.%) Figure 1. Kerogen Quality Humble Geochemical Services Division

KEROGEN TYPE Ticora Geosciences 1000 900 Type I Oil Prone 800 700 HYDROGEN INDEX (HI, mg HC / g TOC) 600 Type II (usu. marine) Oil Prone 500 400 Mixed Type II / III 300 Oil / Gas Prone 200 Type III Gas Prone 100 Type IV Gas Prone 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 OXYGEN INDEX (OI, mg CO 2 /g TOC) Figure 2. Kerogen type Humble Geochemical Services Division

KEROGEN TYPE and MATURITY 3 1000 ~0.55% Ro Type I 900 800 700 HYDROGEN INDEX (mg OIL/g TOC) 600 Type II Oil Prone (usu. marine) 500 400 300 Mixed Type II / III Oil / Gas Prone 200 ~1.00%Ro Type III Gas Prone 100 ~01.40% Ro Type IV 0 330 380 430 480 530 580 Tmax ( o C) Figure 3a. Kerogen Type and Maturity (Tmax) Humble Geochemical Services Division

KEROGEN TYPE and MATURITY Ticora Geosciences 1000 Type I 900 Oil Prone (usu. lacustrine) 800 700 HYDROGEN INDEX (mg OIL/g TOC) 600 Type II Oil Prone (usu. marine) 500 400 300 Mixed Type II / III Oil / Gas Prone 200 Type III Gas Prone 100 Type IV 0 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20 Calculated Vitrinite Reflectance Equivalent (Cal.VReq.) Figure 3b. Kerogen Type and Maturity (Tmax calculated %VRo) Humble Geochemical Services Division

Ticora Geosciences 1.00 Condensate Zone Immature Oil Zone Dry Gas Zone 0.90 0.80 0.70 PRODUCTION INDEX (PI) 0.60 Stained or 0.50 Contaminated 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 Low Level Conversion High Level Conversion - Expulsion 0.00 380 430 480 530 580 MATURITY (based on Tmax ( o C)) Figure 4a. Kerogen conversion and maturity (based on Tmax). Humble Geochemical Services Division

Ticora Geosciences 1.00 Immature Oil Zone Condensate - Dry Gas Zone Wet Gas 0.90 Zone 0.80 0.70 PRODUCTION INDEX (PI) 0.60 Stained or Contaminated 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 High Level Conversion - Expulsion Low Level Conversion 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20 MATURITY (calculated vitrinite reflectance from Tmax) Figure 4b. Kerogen conversion and maturity (calculated %VRo from Tmax). Humble Geochemical Services Division

Appendix III Ascent Energy, Inc Holt 1-19, MFY 5-17, EFU 9-41, & Kirby Gilbreth 1-20 Vitrinite Reflectance Humble Geochemical Services

Table 1 Thermal Alteration, Kerogen Type, and Palynofacies CLIENT: Ticora Geosciences County/State: Pontotoc County, Oklahoma Source Quality % Source Material Preservation Recovery Palynofacies Ro Data Hydrogen Index (HI) Woody Plant Debris Amorphous Debris Finely Dissem. OM % OM Fluorescing Herb. Plant Debris Measured Ro (%) CONTINENTAL Coaly Fragments No. of Readings LACUSTRINE NEARSHORE Palynomorphs UNKNOWN Algal Debris Tmax ( o C) Very poor MARINE GOOD Barren POOR Color FAIR S2 TOC TAI Comments HGS ID Well Id. Depth H04-2576-88243 Jonas #3 (362-3) 3670-3680 4.19 2.70 64 438 YO 2.0 45 45 5 5 x 5 0.85 28 H04-2576-88245 Chandler #3 (362-5) 3900-3920 5.70 28.85 506 435 YO 1.0 45 40 5 10 x 5 0.67 33 very sparse recovery of kerogen Palynomorph Key: Color Abbreviations: TAI Scale: GLY Green-Light Yellow B Brown 1=Unaltered 4=Strong alteration A = Abundant Y Yellow DBDG Dark Brown-Dark Gray 1+ or 1.5 4+ or 4.5 C = Common YO Yellow-Orange DGBL Dark Gray-Black 2=Slight alteration 5=Severe alteration P = Present OB Orange-Brown BLK Black 2+ or 2.5 R = Rare LB Light Brown 3=Moderate alteration N = None Seen 3+ or 3.5 Humble Geochemical Services

9 Jonas #3, Pontotoc Co., OK, 3670-3680 ft. (362-3) 8 7 Indigenous 6 Frequency 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00 Vitrinite Reflectance Ro % Indigenous Population Statistics MEAN: 0.85 MIN: 0.68 MAX: 1.02 STD DEV: 0.10 COUNT: 28 Indigenous 0.85 0.92 1.02 0.88 0.99 0.90 0.75 0.93 0.98 0.89 0.88 0.83 0.97 0.82 0.84 0.76 0.72 0.73 0.96 0.68 0.75 0.72 0.86 0.90 0.86 0.94 0.68 0.90

Chandler #3, Pontotoc Co, OK, 3900-3920 (362-5) 6 Indigenous 5 4 Frequency 3 2 1 0 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 Vitrinite Reflectance Ro % Indigenous Population Statistics MEAN: 0.67 MIN: 0.52 MAX: 0.82 STD DEV: 0.10 COUNT: 33 Indigenous 0.52 0.60 0.66 0.59 0.52 0.73 0.77 0.71 0.74 0.68 0.54 0.61 0.66 0.81 0.70 0.71 0.81 0.62 0.76 0.63 0.56 0.62 0.59 0.82 0.76 0.70 0.72 0.80 0.52 0.82 0.53 0.76 0.58

Table 1 Dispersed Organic Matter Thermal Alteration, Kerogen Type and Total Compositional Analysis TICORA GEOSCIENCES % Source Material Preservation Recovery % Kerogen Comp. Vitrinite Drilling Additive/Contamination Recycled/Oxidized Vitrinite # of Indigeonus Readings Herb. Plant Debris (Vit.) Amorphous Kerogen Total Sample Ro (%) Woody Plant Debris Amorphous Debris Indigenous Vitrinite Finely Dissem. OM Indigenous Ro (%) Coaly Fragments Palynomorphs Caved Vitrinite # of Readings Solid Bitumen Algal Debris SAMPLE ID. Very poor Very Poor Inertinite Barren HGS ID Color Good Poor Good Fair TAI Comments 04-2593-089835 ISO052-2 OB 2.7? 45 45 10 trace? X X X 6 trace 1 3 trace 90 40 0.78 38 0.77 amorph. has oxidized appearance 04-2593-089840 ISO052-7 O 2.3 96 2 1 1 X X 1 trace trace trace trace 99 40 0.62 39 0.62 spherical palynomorphs=acritarchs? Color Abbreviations: TAI Scale: 1=Unaltered 3+ or 3.5 1+ or 1.5 4=Strong alteration GLY Green-Light Yellow B Brown 2=Slight alteration 4+ or 4.5 Y Yellow DBDG Dark Brown-Dark Gray 2+ or 2.5 5=Severe alteration YO Yellow-Orange DGBL Dark Gray-Black 3=Moderate alteration OB Orange-Brown BLK Black LB Light Brown Humble Geochemical Services

Table 2. Kerogen Fluorescence colors and brightness intensities (subjective determinations) TICORA GEOSCIENCES 0 = No fluorescence noted 1 = very low intensity G = Green 2 = low intensity Y = Yellow 3 = medium intensity O = Orange 4 = high intensity B = Brown 5 = very high intensity SAMPLE ID. Pollen/Spores Amorphous Mounting Medium HGS ID G Y O B G Y O B G Y O B 04-2593-089835 ISO052-2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 5 3 3 2 1 04-2593-089840 ISO052-7 Humble Geochemical Services

Table 3. Pyrite types and abundance in kerogen TICORA GEOSCIENCES 1 = very rare 2 = rare 3 = common 4 = abundant 5 = very abundant SAMPLE ID. Pyrite types HGS ID Finely Disseminated Euhedral Framboidal 04-2593-089835 ISO052-2 3 1 1 04-2593-089840 3 4 4 ISO052-7 Humble Geochemical Services

Table 4. Individual Reflectance Readings TICORA GEOSCIENCES 04-2593-089835 04-2593-089840 HGS ID ISO052-2 ISO052=7 SAMPLE ID. Indigenou Indigenou All Data All Data s Data s Data 0.57 0.66 0.5 0.5 0.66 0.67 0.5 0.5 0.67 0.69 0.53 0.53 0.69 0.7 0.56 0.56 0.7 0.7 0.56 0.56 0.7 0.7 0.56 0.56 0.7 0.71 0.57 0.57 0.71 0.72 0.58 0.58 0.72 0.73 0.58 0.58 0.73 0.73 0.58 0.58 0.73 0.73 0.58 0.58 0.73 0.74 0.59 0.59 0.74 0.75 0.6 0.6 0.75 0.76 0.6 0.6 0.76 0.76 0.6 0.6 0.76 0.77 0.6 0.6 0.77 0.77 0.6 0.6 0.77 0.77 0.6 0.6 0.77 0.78 0.61 0.61 0.78 0.78 0.61 0.61 0.78 0.79 0.62 0.62 0.79 0.79 0.62 0.62 0.79 0.79 0.63 0.63 0.79 0.79 0.63 0.63 0.79 0.79 0.63 0.63 0.79 0.8 0.64 0.64 0.8 0.81 0.64 0.64 0.81 0.81 0.65 0.65 0.81 0.82 0.65 0.65 0.82 0.82 0.65 0.65 0.82 0.83 0.65 0.65 0.83 0.83 0.66 0.66 0.83 0.84 0.67 0.67 0.84 0.84 0.68 0.68 0.84 0.85 0.68 0.68 0.85 0.86 0.68 0.68 0.86 0.87 0.7 0.7 0.87 0.88 0.7 0.7 0.88 0.71 0.71 1.11 0.81 Average %R o 0.78 0.77 0.62 0.62 Standard Dev. 0.06 0.05 # of Points 40 38 40 39 Humble Geochemical Services

ISO052-2 40 35 Unknown Formation Depth? Type? 30 Mixed Kerogen Frequency 25 Average %R o = 0.77 20 Std. Dev. = 0.06 15 No. Pts. = 38 10 Caved Vitrinite Recycled Vitrinite 5 Inertinite 0 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 % R o 04-2539-089835 Humble Geochemical Services

ISO052-7 40 35 Unknown Formation Depth? Type? 30 Mixed Kerogen Frequency 25 Average %R o = 0.62 20 Std. Dev. = 0.05 15 No. Pts. = 39 10 Caved Vitrinite Recycled Vitrinite 5 Inertinite 0 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 % R o 04-2539-089840 Hum ble Geochemical Services

Appendix IV Ascent Energy, Inc Holt 1-19, MFY 5-17, EFU 9-41, & Kirby Gilbreth 1-20 Tight Rock Analysis Core Lab

CORE LABORATORIES HOUSTON ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY CENTER Ticora Geosciences, INC CL File No.: HOU-040865 Shale Samples Analysis Date: October 29, 2004, 2004 ISO Φ 52 Project Analyst(s): RL, JH As received Dry & Dean Stark Extracted Conditions Retort Analysis Matrix Permeability (1) Φ (2) Sw (2) Sample Depth Bulk Density Grain Density Sg Gas filled Φ Mobile Oil Bound Hydrocarbon Bound Clay Saturation (So (2) ) (%) Saturation So(%BV) (3) Water Sw (%BV) (3) g/cc mD g/cc (%) (%) (%) (%) 1 ISO Φ 52-1 2.754 na 2.639 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 ISO Φ 52-2 2.473 5.555E-05 2.602 5.85 56.6 3.31 43.45 0.00 0.48 5.38 3 ISO Φ 52-3 2.396 4.748E-08 2.465 3.71 38.8 1.44 61.17 0.00 0.53 5.93 4 ISO Φ 52-4 2.191 1.514E-07 2.233 3.10 10.9 0.34 80.96 8.10 12.75 6.04 5 ISO Φ 52-5 2.213 1.348E-04 2.303 5.29 22.4 1.19 74.78 2.80 7.22 7.22 6 ISO Φ 52-6 2.019 1.861E-04 2.135 6.72 42.5 2.85 54.78 2.74 11.71 7.32 7 ISO Φ 52-7 2.123 3.065E-04 2.311 9.53 63.9 6.08 34.34 1.79 7.33 6.84 8 ISO Φ 52-8 2.245 2.007E-04 2.360 6.19 39.8 2.46 56.85 3.39 6.46 6.22 9 ISO Φ 52-9 2.282 1.615E-04 2.431 7.22 59.4 4.29 37.35 3.26 7.01 6.35 Footnotes: (1) Matrix Permeability calculated from measured pressure decay data on a fresh, crushed, 20/35 mesh size sample. (2) Dean Stark extracted sample dried @ 110 °C. Sample crushed 20/35 mesh size. (3) Calculated from Retort Analysis. Sample 1 ISO Φ 52-1 : It is likely that the analytical procedure has altered the average mineralogy of this sample. This is evidenced by the clean Grain Density being lower than the uncleaned Bulk Density. We are confident in the accuracy of both measurements. Calculation of porosity, permeability and saturations resulted in anomalous values and have not been reported. Page 1 ISO052_Shale Analysis(10-29-04)

Appendix V Ascent Energy, Inc Holt 1-19, MFY 5-17, EFU 9-41, & Kirby Gilbreth 1-20 Core Lithology and Photography TICORA Geosciences, Inc

Core Lithology Client Ascent Energy, Inc TICORA NO: ISO052 Name: SAMPLE INTERVAL COAL MUDSTONE GRAINSTONE DESCRIPTION Non- Non- Banded Banded Sandstone Sandstone SAMPLE SAMPLE Fluid Fluid Carbonate Carbonate Organic Organic Exsudatinite Exsudatinite Banded Banded Shale color Shale color OTHER OTHER COLOR COLOR Integrity Integrity ID. ID. Sensitivity Sensitivity Mineralization Mineralization (Humic) (Humic) (Resinite) (Resinite) Depth Drilled (feet) Depth Drilled (feet) Texture Texture Comments Comments Luster Grain Size e e n n y y l l t t n n a a s s o o h h t t E M D E M D D M L l l F M C C R E M S E M S E M S E M S B B S S S S Sh, drk gry, sl carb, 1 vert frac, no second min ISO052-1 3699.6 X drk gry Sh, gry-drk gry, sl carb, pyr incl, fissile ISO052-2 3701.8 X gry-drk gry Sh, gry-drk gry, sl carb, pyr incl, fissile, salt incl ISO052-3 3707.8 X gry-drk gry Sltstn, lt brn, sl carb, scat sh lams, sl friable 3379.6 ISO052-4 X lt brn Sltstn, lt brn, sl carb, scat sh lams, sl friable 3385 ISO052-5 X lt brn Sltstn, lt brn, sl carb, scat sh lams, sl friable ISO052-6 3391.1 X lt brn Sh, blk, carb ISO052-7 3421 X blk Sh, blk, carb ISO052-8 5373 X blk Sh, blk-drk gry, carb 5376.8 ISO052-9 X blk-drk gry TICORA Geosciences, Inc

Core Photography Ascent Energy, Inc Holt 1-19, MFY 5-17, EFU 9-41, & Kirby Gilbreth 1-20 Woodford Shale TICORA ISO052-1 3,699.6 feet TICORA Geosciences, Inc

Core Photography Ascent Energy, Inc Holt 1-19, MFY 5-17, EFU 9-41, & Kirby Gilbreth 1-20 Woodford Shale TICORA ISO052-5 3,385 feet TICORA Geosciences, Inc

Core Photography Ascent Energy, Inc Holt 1-19, MFY 5-17, EFU 9-41, & Kirby Gilbreth 1-20 Caney Shale TICORA ISO052-8 5,373.0 feet TICORA Geosciences, Inc

Appendix VI Ascent Energy, Inc Holt 1-19, MFY 5-17, EFU 9-41, & Kirby Gilbreth 1-20 Adsorption Isotherm Results TICORA Geosciences, Inc

FINAL REPORT Methane Adsorption Analysis Holt #1-19 (ISO052-2) Ascent Energy, Inc Holt 1-19 : 10N 12E-19 NW NW – Core Samples Submitted To: Ascent Energy 1700 Redbud Blvd., Suite 450 McKinney, TX 75069 Attention: Mr. John Pinkerton Submitted By: TICORA Geosciences, Inc. 19000 West Highway 72, Suite 100 Arvada, Colorado 80007 Office: (720) 898-8200 Fax: (720) 898-8222 November 19, 2004

Ascent Energy, Inc Holt #1-19 TICORA Geosciences, Inc. Disclaimer LEGAL NOTICE: This report was prepared by TICORA Geosciences, Inc. as an account of work performed for the client and is intended for informational purposes only. Any use of this information in relation to any specific application should be based on an independent examination and verification of its applicability for such use by professionally qualified personnel. Neither TICORA Geosciences, Inc., nor any persons or organizations acting on its behalf: (a) Makes any warranty or representation, expressed or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this report; or (b) Assumes any liability with respect to the use of, or for damages resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report. TICORA Geosciences, Inc. 2

Ascent Energy, Inc Holt #1-19 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Summary of Analytical Results ......................................................................................................................... 4 2.0 Sample Preparation............................................................................................................................................ 6 2.1 Sample Reduction .............................................................................................................................................. 6 2.2 Moisture Equilibration........................................................................................................................................ 6 3.0 Sorption Isotherm Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Cell Volume Determination................................................................................................................................ 7 3.2 Sample Loading.................................................................................................................................................. 7 3.3 Void Volume Determination............................................................................................................................... 7 3.4 Sorption Isotherm Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 7 3.5 Sample Unloading .............................................................................................................................................. 8 4.0 Gas Storage Capacity Uncertainty and Error Propagation ............................................................................. 8 5.0 References .......................................................................................................................................................... 9 Appendix A (Cell and Void Volume Calibration) ...........................................................................................................10 Appendix A (continued) ...................................................................................................................................................11 Appendix B (Methane Gas Storage Capacity) ...............................................................................................................12 Appendix B (continued) ...................................................................................................................................................13 Appendix C (Langmuir Regression) ...............................................................................................................................14 TICORA Geosciences, Inc. 3

Ascent Energy, Inc Holt #1-19 1.0 S UMMARY OF A NALYTICAL R ESULTS Table 1. Sample Description and Critical Gas Storage Capacity Data A methane adsorption isotherm Parameter Units Value was conducted on sample Well - Holt #19 & EFU #9-41 ISO052-2. Based on the Location - Unknown adsorption isotherm analysis County - Unknown described herein, the resultant State - Unknown methane storage capacity for Sample Type - Shale sample ISO052-2 on an Reservoir Depth feet 3701.0-3702.0 experimental and 100% TOC Reservoir Pressure psia 1,602.75 basis are 53.94 and 760.81 scf/ton, respectively (at the Reservoir Temperature °F 130.00 Sample Characterization assumed reservoir pressure of 1,602.75 psia). Figure 1 TICORA Sample Number - ISO052-2 illustrates the experimental gas Moisture holding capacity wt. fraction 0.0080 storage capacity data. Sample Assumed ash content (in-situ) wt. fraction 0.9291 description and critical gas TOC content (in-situ) wt. fraction 0.0709 storage capacity data are Mean Maximum Vitrinite reflectance % 0.7800 summarized in Table 1. Coal Rank Classification (ASTM D 388) - Carbonaceous Shale Because TICORA was not In-Situ Gas Storage Capacity Data involved in long term In-Situ Langmuir Volume scf/ton 130.55 desorption analysis, the in-situ In-Situ Langmuir Pressure psia 2,276.15 gas content, initial sorbed gas In-Situ Gas Storage Capacity scf/ton 53.94 saturation value, critical desorption pressure, and gas recovery factor are unknown. Figure 1. Gas Storage Capacity vs. Pressure In-Situ Methane Storage Capacity, scf/ton Experimentally Determined Storage 70 Capacity Experimentally Determined Langmuir Fit 60 95% Confidence Interval Storage Capacity Uncertainty 50 40 30 20 10 Experimentally Determined Basis 0 0 400 800 1,200 1,600 2,000 2,400 Pressure, psia TICORA Geosciences, Inc. 4

Ascent Energy, Inc Holt #1-19 The properties of the sample aliquot used for the analysis and the experimental sorption isotherm results are provided in Table 2. The experimental sorption isotherm and the 100% TOC results are graphically presented in Figure 2 and Figure 3 respectively. Please refer to Appendix B, Methane Gas Storage Capacity, to review the raw methane adsorption isotherm data. Table 2. Experimental Sample Aliquot Properties and Sorption Isotherm Results Parameter Units Value Experimental Gas - methane oF Experimental Temperature 130.22 Sample Mass g 193.66 Sample Density (Void Volume Based) g/cc 2.54 Pre-experiment Moisture Content wt. fraction 0.0080 Post-experiment Moisture Content wt. fraction 0.0080 Experimental Ash Content wt. fraction 0.9291 Minimum Experimental Pressure psia 115.87 Maximum Experimental Pressure psia 2188.34 Experimental Langmuir Volume scf/ton 130.55 Experimental Langmuir Pressure psia 2276.15 Experimental Langmuir Volume Range scf/ton 0.06 Experimental Langmuir Pressure psia 337.49 Calculated Experimental Calculated 100% TOC Langmuir Fit Gas Langmuir Fit Gas Step Pressure 100% TOC Storage Gas Storage Storage Number Gas Storage Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity psia scf/ton scf/ton scf/ton scf/ton 1 115.9 6.60 6.32 93.02 89.19 2 523.5 23.64 24.41 333.42 344.27 3 936.6 38.14 38.06 537.97 536.79 4 1,354.5 48.18 48.70 679.53 686.95 5 1,773.6 56.22 57.17 792.95 806.39 6 2,188.3 65.36 63.99 921.89 902.53 Reservoir 1,602.8 - 53.94 - 760.81 Figure 2. Experimental Gas Storage Capacity Graph Figure 3. 100% TOC Gas Storage Capacity Graph 100 1200 Methane Storage Capacity, scf/ton Experimentally Determined Storage Capacity Methane Storage Capacity, scf/ton 100% TOC Storage Capacity Langmuir Fit Langmuir Fit 1000 95% Confidence Interval 95% Confidence Interval 75 800 50 600 400 25 200 100% TOC Basis 0 0 0 400 800 1,200 1,600 2,000 2,400 0 400 800 1,200 1,600 2,000 2,400 Stabilized Sample Cell Pressure, psia Stabilized Sample Cell Pressure, psia TICORA Geosciences, Inc. 5

Ascent Energy, Inc Holt #1-19 The sorption isotherm analytical results presented herein assume that the Langmuir relationship and model accurately predict the behavior of sorption reservoirs for the pressure and temperature conditions of most interest to coal and shale gas reservoir engineering. Table 3 and Figure 4 provide the results of the Langmuir regression obtained from the experimental sorption isotherm analysis data. Refer to Appendix C, Langmuir Regression , to review the raw Langmuir interpretation data. Figure 4. Langmuir Interpretation Graph Table 3. Langmuir Regression Interpretation Data Pressure / Gas Storage Capacity, psia- 40 Parameter Units Value Experimental Data Slope ton/scf 0.0077 95% Confidence Interval Intercept psia*ton/scf 17.4171 35 Linear Regression Regression Coefficient (squared) - 0.9891 30 Slope Variation ton/scf 0.0014 ton/scf Intercept Variation psia*ton/scf 1.8922 25 GsL Variation scf/ton 0.06 PL Variation psia 337.49 y = 0.0077x + 17.417 20 R 2 = 0.9891 Statistical Significance Level - 0.95 Number of Data Points - 6 15 T Distribution Value - 3.50 10 0 400 800 1,200 1,600 2,000 2,400 Stabilized Sample Cell Pressure, psia 2.0 S AMPLE P REPARATION 2 One of the most significant errors in gas storage capacity measurements results from measuring isotherm data on samples that are not at in-situ moisture conditions. Poor sample handling procedures and/or preparation of a non- representative sample aliquot will also impact gas storage capacity results. A brief description of TICORA’s sample preparation procedure is presented in this section. 2.1 Sample Reduction Typically, a core sample is quickly crushed to ¼” size particles. The sample is wetted with a misting spray bottle during comminution to maintain excess surface moisture. Representative aliquots are removed for the various analyses and testing required for complete characterization of the core sample, including helium density, moisture holding capacity and sorption isotherm analysis. The remaining crushed core (Premium Sample) is sealed in a laminate bag purged with helium to prevent oxidation. If a composite sample is required, then crushed aliquots are obtained from the premium samples of all core samples to be incorporated into the composite. These aliquots are combined and homogenized through staged grinding and riffling to produce a representative composite sample. The relative mass of each aliquot in the composite is determined on a weighted average basis. The sorption isotherm aliquot is further reduced to a particle size of minus 60 mesh. 2.2 Moisture Equilibration Before testing, isotherm samples are equilibrated to inherent moisture content using an improved version of ASTM Method D1412-99 for determining the moisture holding capacity (MHC) of coal samples. The two most critical differences in the improved method used by TICORA are that equilibration is conducted at reservoir temperature (to more accurately reflect in-situ conditions) and the time the sample spends equilibrating at in-situ conditions is extended up to 30 days. After the equilibration process, MHC is determined on a portion of the larger (~ 200 grams) sorption isotherm sample. MHC is also determined for triplicate aliquots of the premium samples which the isotherm sample is comprised of. The results are then compared to ensure that the inherent moisture content of isotherm sample has not been affected by the differences in mass and particle size relative to the equilibrated moisture contents from the Premium Samples. The sorption isotherm sample is then sealed in a laminate bag purged with helium and placed in refrigerated storage until it is tested. Note that MHC is not conducted on shale samples due to the unique structure of the organic material found within shales, and other inherent problems when attempting to determine the MHC of shales. TICORA Geosciences, Inc. 6

Ascent Energy, Inc Holt #1-19 3.0 S ORPTION I SOTHERM A NALYSIS 1 Sorption isotherm data relate sorbed gas storage capacity to pressure and are necessary to predict the production behavior of sorption reservoirs such as found in coal seams and shale gas deposits. The difference between in-situ reservoir pressure and the critical desorption pressure defines the amount of pressure that must be decreased at the well head to enable the representative sample to begin desorbing the gas bound to its organic matter. Based upon the initial degree of saturation and the abandonment pressure, the percent recovery expresses the percentage of the gas content that can be extracted from the reservoir during the life of production. The following procedures are required to produce gas storage capacity data: • Calculate reference and sample cell volumes using helium. • Calculate the void volume present within the sample cell when sample is present with in the vessel. • Perform a sorption isotherm test with a given sorbing gas (CH 4 , CO 2 , N 2 , C 2 H 6 ), using the resulting pressure and temperature data to calculate the number of molecules sorbed within the sample over a series of increasing pressure steps. 3.1 Cell Volume Determination Before any type of sorption isotherm analysis can be conducted the volumes of the reference and sample cells must be accurately known. To determine the cell volumes a calibration test must be run twice, first with each cell empty, then with the sample cell filled with calibration bearings of a known volume. Each test is run using six pressure steps and the non- sorbing gas, helium. The calculated reference cell and sample cell volumes should be identical (relative to each individual cell) for all six pressure steps, but in reality there are slight volume variations each step (approximately ±0.25 cm 3 deviation from the average) due to the limits of accuracy present in the various instrumental components. The highest and lowest determined cell volumes are discarded and the remaining four values are averaged. Appendix A includes the raw cell volume calibration data. 3.2 Sample Loading The sample is weighed quickly on a precision balance accurate to .0001 grams. Regularly the sample’s weight is in a continual state of flux upon the scale due to evaporation of moisture from the sample. Through experience it has been determined that subtracting ~ 0.005 grams from the last reading before removal from the scale is adequate to account for further moisture/weight loss that will occur between the time the sample is removed from the scale to the point it is loaded within the test vessel. After weighing, the sample is loaded into the sample cell and lowered into the controlled- temperature oil bath. 3.3 Void Volume Determination Once the sample is loaded into the sample cell, the reference and sample cells are brought to reservoir temperature. The void volume is then determined similarly to cell volume calibration, using helium (a non sorbing gas) and six pressure steps. The highest and lowest determined void volumes are discarded and the remaining four are averaged. Appendix A also includes the raw void volume calibration data. 3.4 Sorption Isotherm Analysis Once the void volume has been calculated, sorption isotherm analysis is conducted. The reference cell is charged with a sorbing gas to a pressure above the desired sample vessel equilibrium pressure. After the charged reference cell pressure reaches equilibrium, the valve between the sample cell and reference cell is opened and gas is allowed to flow into the sample cell. The valve between the vessels is closed and the sample and reference cell pressures are allowed to come to equilibrium. The reference cell is then recharged and the sequence of events is repeated. The number of molecules sorbed onto a sample during a pressure step is determined based on material balance. The number of molecules sorbed is equal to the number of molecules that flow out of the reference cell into the sample cell, minus the number of remaining molecules in the void volume of the sample cell after the sample cell pressure equilibrates. The void volume includes the pore space within the sample and therefore is reduced from pressure step to pressure step as more and more porosity is filled with sorbed gas. This requires the void volume be recalculated for each step (Review Reference 1 for a more detailed discussion of this topic). The number of moles sorbed during a pressure step is converted to an equivalent scf/ton value and corrected for the change in void volume. Each individually determined pressure step storage capacity is added to the previously determined storage capacity and reported with the corresponding end sample equilibrium pressure. Gas storage capacity results are typically converted to reflect storage capacity on a dry, ash free basis, etc. Such data, though theoretical, are useful for comparing samples that might vary in depth, ash content, moisture content, etc. The calculations to determine gas storage capacity on a moist, ash free basis, dry, ash free basis, in-situ basis, and dry, ash TICORA Geosciences, Inc. 7

Ascent Energy, Inc Holt #1-19 and sulfur free basis are presented in Equations 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively. Appendix B includes the raw gas storage capacity data. G sma = G s • 1/(1 – w ae ) (1) G sa = G s • 1/(1 – w me – w ae ) (2) G si = G sa • (1 – w mi – w ai ) (3) G sa&s = G s • 1/(1 – w me – w ae – w se ) (4) Where: gas storage capacity, scf/ton G s G sma moist , ash free gas storage capacity, scf/ton G sa dry, ash free gas storage capacity, scf/ton G si in-situ gas storage capacity, sfc/ton G sa&s dry, ash and sulfur free gas storage capacity, scf/ton w me experimentally determined moisture weight fraction w ae experimentally determined ash weight fraction w se experimentally determined total sulfur fraction w mi in-situ moisture weight fraction w ai in-situ ash weight fraction To construct a mathematical fit to the resulting data, the Langmuir model is used. Plotting equilibrium pressure divided by calculated storage capacity vs. equilibrium pressure produces a linear relationship. The intercept and slope of the resulting linear function are used to produce the “Langmuir Parameters” (Langmuir pressure and Langmuir volume). Once the Langmuir parameters are determined one can model the gas storage capacity at any pressure. The mathematical model is defined by Equation 5. Appendix C includes the raw Langmuir regression data. G s = G sL •p / (p+ P L ) (5) Where: G s gas storage capacity, scf/ton p pressure, psia G sL Langmuir Volume, sfc/ton P L Langmuir Pressure, psia 3.5 Sample Unloading Once the sorption isotherm test has been completed, the sample cell pressure is reduced to slightly above atmospheric pressure. The sample begins to desorb the gas sorbed during the sorption isotherm test, causing the pressure inside the sample cell to rise. The pressure build up reduces repeatedly until all gas has been desorbed. The sample is then unloaded and a small aliquot is removed for post-isotherm MHC determination. Post-isotherm MHC is conducted in triplicate and the moisture content is compared to the MHC determined prior to isotherm analysis. This is done to ensure that the moisture content has remained stable and to ensure that the storage capacity results do indeed reflect in-situ conditions. 4.0 G AS S TORAGE C APACITY U NCERTAINTY AND E RROR P ROPAGATION 1 There are systematic and random errors associated with isotherm measurements. The systematic errors result from improper sample preparation and handling, use of an experimental temperature different from the actual reservoir temperature, errors in gas z factor estimates, and poor equipment calibration practices. Condensation of the sorbing gas of interest within the sample or reference cells can also occur when testing relatively high critical temperature gases (CO 2 , C 2 H 6 , C 3 H 8 for example), even at temperatures below the critical temperature. Examples of random errors are those that result from unintended exceptions to standard sample preparation procedures, cell pressure and temperature variations caused by laboratory condition and oil bath temperature variations, and temperature and pressure measurement fluctuations caused by electronic equipment and electrical power variations. In an effort to reduce these errors, TICORA uses the most accurate gas density correlations available. All pressure transducers, thermocouples, and mass balances are calibrated or checked before each measurement. TICORA requests that the clients take special care in estimating reservoir temperature before requesting sorption isotherm analysis. The condensation conditions for gases are accurately known and avoided. We have reduced random errors by construction of an isolated, insulated, and temperature controlled isotherm laboratory that includes high quality (and expensive) TICORA Geosciences, Inc. 8

Ascent Energy, Inc Holt #1-19 electrical control and battery backup systems. All of the electronic equipment used in the isotherm apparatus are the best quality available. Independent and random uncertainties can be computed by differentiating the isotherm interpretation equations. The uncertainty estimated in this manner is generally expected to be a maximum uncertainty as it is unlikely that each parameter will be at its maximum accuracy limit during any one measurement. Equation 6 is the general error equation for a function of n variables, x 1 through x n . The derivative values and the associated errors are computed for each parameter in the equations used to compute the reference cell, sample cell, and void volumes and the equation used to calculate the gas storage capacity for each isotherm step. 2 2 2 ⎛ ∂ ⎞ ⎛ ∂ ⎞ ⎛ ∂ ⎞ ( ) f f f ⋅⋅⋅ = + + ⋅⋅⋅+ ⎜ , , , ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎟ df x x x dx dx dx (6) 1 2 ∂ 1 ∂ 2 ∂ n n ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ x x ⎝ x ⎠ 1 2 n The calibration errors are used to estimate the uncertainty in each step of the isotherm measurements. The individual items are the combination of the partial derivative of the total gas storage capacity with respect to the parameter times the maximum error in the parameter. These parameters were squared and added in accordance with Equation 6 to estimate the total uncertainty. Refer to Appendix B , Methane Gas Storage Capacity , pp. 12, to review the total gas storage capacity uncertainty associated with the isotherm conducted for sample ISO052-2. TICORA emphasizes that gas storage capacity data are not measured directly but are computed from measured pressure and temperature conditions. By taking great care to maximize measurement accuracy while minimizing systematic and random errors TICORA has found that we can measure gas storage capacity data with an average uncertainty of ±5% or less. TICORA takes pride in full disclosure of all data involved with sorption isotherm measurements. 5.0 R EFERENCES 1. Mavor, M.J., Hartman, C., and Pratt, T.J.: “Uncertainty in Sorption Isotherm Measurements”, paper 411, Proceedings 2004 International Coalbed Methane Symposium , University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL (May 2004) 2. Testa, S.M. and Pratt, T.J.: “Sample Preparation for Coal and Shale Gas Resource Assessment”, paper 356, 2003 International Coalbed Methane Symposium , University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL (May 5-9, 2003) 3. 2001 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 05.05 Gaseous Fuels; Coal and Coke, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA (2001). TICORA Geosciences, Inc. 9

Ascent Energy, Inc Holt #1-19 Appendix A Cell Volume and Void Volume Calibration Calibration Data with Empty Sample Cell Reference Cell Step Step Start Step Stop Pre-Open Pre-Open Pre-Open Stabilized Stabilized Stabilized Elapsed Step Time Time Pressure Temp. z Factor Pressure Temp. z Factor Number Time hours hours hours psia F - psia F - 1 0.48 2.13 1.65 148.54 97.02 1.00452 55.32 97.03 1.00168 2 2.78 3.28 0.50 314.52 97.03 1.00958 149.43 97.01 1.00455 3 3.88 4.44 0.57 508.42 97.02 1.01551 279.23 97.02 1.00851 4 20.13 21.13 1.00 1006.40 96.96 1.03078 640.99 96.93 1.01957 5 21.70 23.01 1.31 1526.87 97.00 1.04680 894.54 97.00 1.02735 6 23.97 25.87 1.90 2077.83 97.01 1.06379 1,317.10 97.02 1.04034 Sample Cell Step Step Start Step End Pre-Open Pre-Open Pre-Open Stabilized Stabilized Stabilized Step Elapsed Time Time Pressure Temp. z Factor Pressure Temp. z Factor Time Number hours hours hours psia F - psia F - 1 0.48 2.78 2.30 1.93 97.25 1.00006 55.14 97.30 1.00168 2 2.78 3.88 1.09 55.14 97.30 1.00168 148.99 97.30 1.00453 3 3.88 20.13 16.26 148.99 97.30 1.00453 279.28 97.24 1.00851 4 20.13 21.70 1.56 279.28 97.24 1.00851 540.31 97.27 1.01648 5 21.70 23.97 2.28 540.31 97.27 1.01648 892.58 97.29 1.02727 6 23.97 25.87 1.90 892.58 97.29 1.02727 1,314.50 97.30 1.04023 Calibration Data with Calibration Bearings in Sample Cell Reference Cell Step Step Start Step End Pre-Open Pre-Open Pre-Open Stabilized Stabilized Stabilized Step Elapsed Time Time Pressure Temp. z Factor Pressure Temp. z Factor Number Time hours hours hours psia F - psia F - 1 1.07 1.78 0.72 160.95 97.02 1.00490 85.44 97.01 1.00260 2 2.20 3.00 0.80 305.10 97.02 1.00930 199.20 97.01 1.00607 3 3.38 4.12 0.74 502.14 97.03 1.01532 356.17 96.97 1.01086 4 16.42 17.71 1.30 1006.03 97.03 1.03077 691.46 97.01 1.02112 5 18.46 21.83 3.37 1607.49 97.02 1.04928 1,161.40 97.03 1.03554 6 22.99 23.86 0.87 2409.68 97.04 1.07403 1,798.73 97.02 1.05518 Sample Cell Step Step Start Step End Pre-Open Pre-Open Pre-Open Stabilized Stabilized Stabilized Step Elapsed Time Time Pressure Temp. z Factor Pressure Temp. z Factor Number Time hours hours hours psia F - psia F - 1 1.07 2.20 1.13 3.17 96.89 1.00010 84.30 96.90 1.00257 2 2.20 3.38 1.18 84.30 96.90 1.00257 197.93 96.88 1.00603 3 3.38 16.42 13.03 197.93 96.88 1.00603 353.71 96.93 1.01078 4 16.42 18.46 2.04 353.71 96.93 1.01078 685.83 96.91 1.02095 5 18.46 22.99 4.53 685.83 96.91 1.02095 1,153.42 96.92 1.03531 6 22.99 23.86 0.87 1153.42 96.92 1.03531 1,787.92 96.93 1.05485 TICORA Geosciences, Inc. 10

Ascent Energy, Inc Holt #1-19 Appendix A (continued) Sample Cell Void Volume Calibration Data Reference Cell Step Step Start Step End Pre-Open Pre-Open Pre-Open Stabilized Stabilized Stabilized Step Elapsed Time Time Pressure Temp. z Factor Pressure Temp. z Factor Number Time hours hours hours psia F - psia F - 1 1.15 18.36 17.21 165.14 129.92 1.00471 80.35 129.91 1.00229 2 19.09 19.57 0.48 316.26 129.92 1.00903 192.37 129.93 1.00549 3 20.07 22.44 2.38 517.45 129.93 1.01479 346.42 129.92 1.00989 4 23.03 24.36 1.32 987.58 129.93 1.02830 648.83 129.93 1.01856 5 25.02 43.51 18.50 1562.58 129.94 1.04489 1,077.25 129.95 1.03088 6 44.11 45.27 1.17 2388.27 129.93 1.06879 1,689.94 129.92 1.04857 Sample Cell Step Step Start Step End Pre-Open Pre-Open Pre-Open Stabilized Stabilized Stabilized Step Elapsed Time Time Pressure Temp. z Factor Pressure Temp. z Factor Number Time hours hours hours psia F - psia F - 1 1.15 19.09 17.94 3.59 130.05 1.00010 80.72 130.01 1.00230 2 19.09 20.07 0.98 80.72 130.01 1.00230 192.86 130.03 1.00550 3 20.07 23.03 2.97 192.86 130.03 1.00550 347.01 130.05 1.00991 4 23.03 25.02 1.98 347.01 130.05 1.00991 649.40 130.03 1.01857 5 25.02 44.11 19.09 649.40 130.03 1.01857 1,077.94 130.01 1.03090 6 44.11 45.27 1.17 1077.94 130.01 1.03090 1,690.74 130.01 1.04859 Cell Volume Calibration Data Reference Sample Void Cell Cell Volume Step Number Volume Volume cm3 cm3 cm3 1 117.87 205.69 129.56 2 117.64 205.40 129.95 3 118.81 206.79 130.16 4 220.47 301.18 130.26 5 118.31 206.30 130.70 6 118.54 206.48 130.12 Average 135.27 221.97 130.12 Deviation Value From Parameter Average cm3 % Interpretation Reference Cell Volume 118.38 -12.4857 Interpretation Sample Cell Volume 206.32 -7.0538 Interpretation Void Volume 130.12 -0.0016 Interpretation Parameters Parameter Units Value Sample Mass g 193.66 Sample Density (Void Volume Based) g/cm3 2.54 Total Calibration Bearings Volume cm3 96.53 Helium Molecular Weight g/gmole 4.0026 The N.I.S.T Pure Fluids Data Base was the Equation of State used to calculate all free gas densities. TICORA Geosciences, Inc. 11

Ascent Energy, Inc Holt #1-19 Appendix B Methane Gas Storage Capacity Methane Sorption End Point Data Reference Cell Step Step Step Pre-Open Pre-Open Pre-Open Stabilized Stabilized Stabilized Step Start Stop Elapsed Pressure Temp. z Factor Pressure Temp. z Factor Time Time Time Number hours hours hours psia F - psia F - 1 0.69 3.38 2.69 243.01 130.17 0.98026 115.78 130.13 0.99047 2 5.24 6.47 1.23 957.93 130.14 0.92931 523.35 130.13 0.95883 3 8.18 10.68 2.50 1,380.45 130.16 0.90631 936.97 130.17 0.93063 4 22.28 24.47 2.20 1,809.09 130.16 0.89019 1,354.17 130.15 0.90754 5 25.24 27.01 1.77 2,240.92 130.16 0.88236 1,772.86 130.16 0.89123 6 27.81 32.03 4.22 2,665.71 130.16 0.88316 2,187.63 130.16 0.88286 Sample Cell Step Step Step Pre-Open Pre-Open Pre-Open Stabilized Stabilized Stabilized Step Start Stop Elapsed Pressure Temp. z Factor Pressure Temp. z Factor Number Time Time Time hours hours hours psia F - psia F - 1 0.69 5.24 4.55 2.85 130.23 0.99976 115.87 130.22 0.99047 2 5.24 8.18 2.93 115.87 130.22 0.99047 523.45 130.22 0.95885 3 8.18 22.28 14.10 523.45 130.22 0.95885 936.61 130.22 0.93068 4 22.28 25.24 2.97 936.61 130.22 0.93068 1,354.54 130.22 0.90757 5 25.24 27.81 2.57 1354.54 130.22 0.90757 1,773.61 130.20 0.89125 6 27.81 32.03 4.22 1773.61 130.20 0.89125 2,188.34 130.22 0.88291 Average Temperature 130.22 Experimentally Determined Storage Capacity Data Gibbs Stabilized Stabilized Storage Gibbs True 100% TOC Sample Sample Step Capacity Storage Storage Storage Cell Cell Gas Correction Capacity Capacity Capacity Number Pressure Density Factor psia g/cm3 - scf/ton scf/ton scf/ton 1 115.87 0.00475 1.0114 6.52 6.60 93.02 2 523.45 0.02216 1.0554 22.40 23.64 333.42 3 936.61 0.04085 1.1071 34.45 38.14 537.97 4 1,354.54 0.06059 1.1675 41.27 48.18 679.53 5 1,773.61 0.08079 1.2366 45.47 56.22 792.95 6 2,188.34 0.10061 1.3128 49.79 65.36 921.89 TICORA Geosciences, Inc. 12

Provided Via Email 19000 W. Highway 72, Suite 100 Arvada, CO 80007 - PDF document

Provided Via Email 19000 W. Highway 72, Suite 100 Arvada, CO 80007 Tuesday, January 24, 2006 Ron Jones Ascent Energy Inc. 1700 Redbud Blvd., Suite 450 McKinney, TX 75069 Re: Data Revision for the Woodford/Caney Shale six well (OGS Sample

A service provided by Lane ESD Lane ESD provides email services for the ESD itself and 13

Michael Lubliner, Senior Building Science Specialist WSU Energy Program Funding provided by the

Relief Email www.REIVault.com Email problem and solution EMAIL OVERLOAD Things falling

ConvertKit Rockstars Week 1 What is email marketing? Email marketing is the act of sending a

Welcome Clients of Mariner Wealth Advisors Cybersecurity Education Series Email Security

Email Marketing Foundations for Success By Nicole Delma Email Marketing - Intro Email Marketing

Mailfence Reclaim your email privacy A SECURE AND PRIVATE EMAIL Mohammad Salman Nadeem

Repo porting Requ quirements 1 Upload and Download Links Do not send information via email;

Comparing User-Provided Tests to Developer-Provided Tests Ren Just, Chris Parnin, Ian Drosos,

How to Identify a Phishing Email Brought to you by Information Security Services An email address

Email Features and Functions What we will cover What is Email What is Gmail Why do we

Elements of Email Quick tips you can use right away to improve the essentials of your email

Comments may be provided as follows: In-Person Attendance: Comment forms are provided

Engaging Email Newsletters Strategy and Tactics Email is one of the biggest opportunities in the

Infrastructure Systems Fred Seaton, Sr. UNIX Administrator SERVICES PROVIDED

Chapter 9 Internet Email Page 1 We Shall be Covering ... Internet email Using Ximian

Enhancing Anaerobic Digestion of High-solid Sludge with Coupled Ultrasonic and Alkaline

DAMAGES IN THERMOPLASTIC COMPOSITE STRUCTURES: APPLICATION TO HIGH PRESSURE HYDROGEN STORAGE

WOOLLEN CARDING & SPINNING Niall Finn, Ray Wood Woollen Inputs Broken Top

Carbohydrate Metabolism How is glucose used and stored in the body? 1. Complex carbohydrates

Validity of bending tests on strip-shaped specimens to derive bending strength and stiffness

Authors review of his research achievements and publications 1. Name and surname Dariusz

Impact of dust on biogeochemical processes in the East Mediterranean Sea, case studies and gaps of

Myths and Realities Involving Grain Food Consumption What Does the Scientific Evidence Say? Yanni

Provided Via Email 19000 W. Highway 72, Suite 100 Arvada, CO 80007 - PDF document

Provided Via Email 19000 W. Highway 72, Suite 100 Arvada, CO 80007 Tuesday, January 24, 2006 Ron Jones Ascent Energy Inc. 1700 Redbud Blvd., Suite 450 McKinney, TX 75069 Re: Data Revision for the Woodford/Caney Shale six well (OGS Sample

A service provided by Lane ESD Lane ESD provides email services for the ESD itself and 13

Michael Lubliner, Senior Building Science Specialist WSU Energy Program Funding provided by the

Relief Email www.REIVault.com Email problem and solution EMAIL OVERLOAD Things falling

ConvertKit Rockstars Week 1 What is email marketing? Email marketing is the act of sending a

Welcome Clients of Mariner Wealth Advisors Cybersecurity Education Series Email Security

Email Marketing Foundations for Success By Nicole Delma Email Marketing - Intro Email Marketing

Mailfence Reclaim your email privacy A SECURE AND PRIVATE EMAIL Mohammad Salman Nadeem

Repo porting Requ quirements 1 Upload and Download Links Do not send information via email;

Comparing User-Provided Tests to Developer-Provided Tests Ren Just, Chris Parnin, Ian Drosos,

How to Identify a Phishing Email Brought to you by Information Security Services An email address

Email Features and Functions What we will cover What is Email What is Gmail Why do we

Elements of Email Quick tips you can use right away to improve the essentials of your email

Comments may be provided as follows: In-Person Attendance: Comment forms are provided

Engaging Email Newsletters Strategy and Tactics Email is one of the biggest opportunities in the

Infrastructure Systems Fred Seaton, Sr. UNIX Administrator SERVICES PROVIDED

Chapter 9 Internet Email Page 1 We Shall be Covering ... Internet email Using Ximian

Enhancing Anaerobic Digestion of High-solid Sludge with Coupled Ultrasonic and Alkaline

DAMAGES IN THERMOPLASTIC COMPOSITE STRUCTURES: APPLICATION TO HIGH PRESSURE HYDROGEN STORAGE

WOOLLEN CARDING &amp; SPINNING Niall Finn, Ray Wood Woollen Inputs Broken Top

Carbohydrate Metabolism How is glucose used and stored in the body? 1. Complex carbohydrates

Validity of bending tests on strip-shaped specimens to derive bending strength and stiffness

Authors review of his research achievements and publications 1. Name and surname Dariusz

Impact of dust on biogeochemical processes in the East Mediterranean Sea, case studies and gaps of

Myths and Realities Involving Grain Food Consumption What Does the Scientific Evidence Say? Yanni

WOOLLEN CARDING & SPINNING Niall Finn, Ray Wood Woollen Inputs Broken Top